Irish Examiner view: Obstacles on the mission to inform

Unavailability of video after Index on Censorship event in Dublin could be another worrying instance of self-censorship

The TCD conference examined how Ireland's defamation laws suppress freedom of expression — a reminder of the torrid atmosphere surrounding public discourse now. 

It is perhaps beyond parody that a conference called to discuss the ways in which Ireland’s defamation laws suppress freedom of expression has been stopped from issuing a recording of proceedings because of concerns that they may attract a writ for libel.

The meeting, organised by non-profit campaigners Index on Censorship at Trinity College, Dublin, debated the role of strategic lawsuits against public participation — known by its acronym of ‘Slapps’ — usually deployed by wealthy individuals to silence public-interest reporting.

The programme featured contributions from Mary Lawlor, a UN special rapporteur, and Bill Browder, an activist financier known for his opposition to Vladimir Putin. Case studies included the “cash for ash” scandal in the North and the FAI. 

TCD’s legal team blocked plans to publish a recording of the conference or issue a copy to Index on Censorship unless the organisation provides it with legal waivers, including those signed by speakers.

While this might call into question the credibility of one of Ireland’s main universities in providing a platform for freedom-of-speech events, it is also a reminder of the torrid atmosphere which can surround modern public discourse and which can create a climate where it is easier to self-censor than to speak out.

This is another example where the intervention of lawyers supports the famous proposition in Hamlet that “there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so”.

In other words, all actions are open to personal interpretation. In this case, the legal advisors have followed the path of caution rather than boldness. Whether this is appropriate in an organisation which exists as a crucible for ideas and debate is a question worth asking.

The same query arises when we look at the legislation generated by the European Court and the European Court of Human Rights concerning the right to impart and receive information. The European Court has been central in establishing the concept of “the right to be forgotten” which, whatever its good intentions, is usually deployed by the rich, the influential, and the litigious. 

Now the ECHR is muttering darkly about the legality of rules which allow the publication of names of tax defaulters.

Currently in Ireland, the Revenue Commissioners can publish a list of the name, address, and occupation of each taxpayer on whom a fine or penalty was imposed or determined by a court. As a mind-concentrator and example of open justice, it’s a useful tool. 

But, following a right-to-privacy case in Hungary heard by the ECHR, it’s under threat in EU jurisdictions. Another example of mission creep by those who like to keep information under wraps when the general prejudice should be for openness.